On Feb 14, 5:10 pm, Grant Rettke <gret... at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Will Duquette <w... at wjduquette.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 4:13 pm, Grant Rettke <gret... at acm.org> wrote:
> >> I have heard people explain that when they use dynamically typed
> >> languages they prefer more verbose procedure names because it makes it
> >> easier to "refactor" their code.
>> > I'm not questioning the verbosity; I'm questioning defining umpteen
> > functions when one function with two or three keyword arguments would
> > do the same work. The umpteen functions are no doubt simpler and
> > easier to understand in isolation--but when you've got a swarm of
> > them, it seems to me that you end up with more to understand. I agree
> > that using just "append" instead of, say, "hc-append", is probably a
> > bad idea; "append" is too generic.
>> My reply was an answer to yours. One reason to have N append functions
> rather than 1 is that it makes it easier to search for uses of it in
> your code. I wouldn't say that N functions are easier to understand or
> not; just that they are easier to search for ;).
Oh, OK. Sorry about that. :-)
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
>http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme